bluecalm

Passsss. I assume dbl was game forcing ? If my agreements are than dbl is 6+ then well, I pass anyway and change the agreements after the hand.

I think "acceptance" is a bit misleading here. They just bid suits. First responder bid his suit (via transfer) then opener bid his suits (by steps in order H/C/D/S then responder bids in steps if he has no support, 3supp, 4supp; Their system is very simple in general, much more simple than even symmetric relays I think. (they of course have many agreements in subsequent bidding which may or may not be simple I dunno, I am talking about general design of the system and handling first 2/3 rounds of bidding)

Why "difficult to defend" should dictate the law? If it's easy to understand for opponents and it's easy to have some meta agreements to reasonably deal with it I don't see reason for banning other than comfort of some today players in some countries (mainly USA). Even semipro/pro pairs here don't have much agreements against multi. Those are great players, they don't complain about efficiency of their defense to multi at all and they face it in every tournament and match they play because multi here is default (it's in very first bidding system people learn and most beginners/recreational players/old players play it; rest usually play Wilkosz which is much more difficult to defend than multi). I wonder if the coach you mention plays/played vs multi every tournament/match. While it may be true that it's difficult to come up with "optimal" defense. It's very easy to come up with defense which makes pair playing multi worse off than the one playing weak twos on hands when they come up.

Well, in my country it's 75%+ of club players. I was just unable to think about simple rules which would eliminate what I think is bad which would allow multi. Maybe "anything goes" is better though. Just put some rules for having convention cards/system description for strange stuff. I just fear bridge would become one big td call fest full of situations like: 2H* - 2S - dbl** - pass pass*** * = spades or 2minors ** = either penalty or t/o after 5 seconds of thought *** = you had penalty ? guessed so ! I don't think coming up with rules which would catter for all possibilities is possible. I would hate it though if people start playing things which are impossible or very hard to play ethically. Multi is not one of those things obviously. It's easy to defend, it's quite clear how people bid after it and it's probably not too good anyway. I just want simple rules and I am willing to sacrifice some stuff people play now in the name of clarity and allowing many other things which are banned now because some old ladies didn't like facing them.

Damn I somehow thought it's clear I don't have A♣ here. Obviously 8♣ then as partner will lead Q from KQT/KQx seeing a low card which will establish 2 discards for declarer.

While I agree that the more people are used to the system the more smooth the bidding goes I think that alternative meanings of openings (which are usually combined with responder bidding in a way that opener assumes he guessed opener's suits) cause too many problems. I accept that I can be wrong on this one, but where I live people often play this kind of stuff and even if they have a lot of practice with that they usually can't bid in tempo all the time and almost never give satisfying explanations. Yeah, but why ban something just because it gives opponents problems ?

I am putting together precision based system by my own right now and I think putting all 4-4-4-1 hands in one bid is kinda difficult to handle. Let's say it's 2♠ then after 2NT relay one answer is at 3♠ level. After that you don't have space for both range ask and RKCB in every suit, as partner is unlimited it's not a good situation imo. I think I will solve the problem by assigning ♠/♥ shortness to 2♠ and ♣/3♦ shortnesses to 3♣/3♦ bids which is kinda similar to what OP did.

I would give count. I am not convinced it's better just seems to be consistent with general rules I have with my partners (give attitude in the suit if that matters if not count, if not S/P).

Well, I think that if opponents won't expect those things you are being unethical even if you have best intentions. This is why I think things which are : a)very complicated b)prone to establish many unwritten agreements which people won't realize c)prone to give UI's because it's difficult to bid in tempo facing them Should be banned. In standard you can expect most people know all the interferences. If you have some things in your system which change those (like weak NT or mexican 2D or if you open 1♣ with 4-4-3-2) you should explain it or at least have good convention card at the table. Also if you played bridge in other country than US where better minor is as about as strange guest as Moscito you should explain all things you wrote about imo.

I second this. Also it would be nice if you tell us if you are interested in private/public discussion of the system or you just want to give us a nice gift :blink:

Yes that's what I mean. There are other problems like need for sound action of responder (because you are in danger of opener jumping to 3 of his suit, to 2NT or even to game, which he will do with most hand in 15-17range which are not suitable for 2m rebid) but I guess they are not on topic of this post.

Playing polish club with 2/1gf structure is the most standard way to play polish club in Poland :blink: While you don't need Gazilli I find classical polish club 12-17 range a bit awkward to deal with in sequences when opener makes non forcing rebid (ex: 1D - 1S - 2C, 1S - 1NT - 2C etc.) Maybe it's small difference but if you play gazilli you normaly have 17-21 in 2♣. You also put very good 16's there. In polish club this range is wider. It's the system I am most familiar with and given the choice I would much prefer to play either precision style (11-15openings) or "standard" 11-22 openings (with gazilli of course)

I made one more simulation. Where number of tricks matter. No. of Deals where specified card is the best lead: ♠ - 107 low ♥ - 380 2♦ - 310 8♣ - 355 I don't know how to check for number of deals where given lead is better than ♥ lead though. What we can deduce from those results is that there were 120 hands in 500 were ♥ wasn't the best lead.

PASSSSSS. It would be much more interesting in other vulnerabilities.

Acol 1♣ contain balanced hand with at least 2hcp range :( Well, right. Intuitively it should be legal. My only beef is only with alternative meanings of opening. It's not that they are difficult to defend (if so, let's be it) but they will in practice produce violations of full disclosure rule as well as giving UI's all the time. Maybe there are better ways to formulate the rules. I think my initial 2 were quite clear and good. No doubt there are better solutions though.

Why not ? Double seems to be natural choice for me. Also I don't see why "someone is telling a porkie here". It's just that 3rd hand openings are 8+, not 12+.

I think banning transfer opening is really bad idea. We shouldn't base system regulations on what we are used to because it's the very best way to tame all progress. I think what should be taken into account is how likely is given agreement encourage cheating (mainly non conscious one) and violating full disclosure rule. I feel for example that alternative openings from strong pass systems like: 1♠ = 0-2♠ or 6+♠ 8-12hcp. Is big problem. Same goes for alternative 2suiters like: 2♥ = either 6♠ or 5-5minors (popular in Poland). I feel that pair using those methods will have hard time explaining everything to the opponents. They will often not realize how many agreements they have there and opponents should be entitled to know exactly how given hands would usually react to such opening. Other thing is that without screens there is just too much room for UI to be passed around. This is why I would allow only openings which has "simple meanings". For example this set of rules sounds reasonable to me: Allowed: a)any opening which promises 4+ cards in known suit b)any opening which promises continuous hcp range and contains balance distribution in at least 2hcp range. So with this rules: -multi would be illegal -polish club/precision/scandi club etc. would all be legal (1♦ from precision contains balanced shape) -alternative 2suiters would be illegal -most existing forcing pass systems would be illegal (because most of them contain openings with alternative meanings) but forcing pass in principle wouldn't be illegal as you could try to construct system like: PASS = 13+ 1♦ = 0-7any 1♣ = 8-12 without 5card major 1♥/1♠ = 5+cards etc. -2♣/2♦/2♥ promising majors 4+-4+ would of course be all legal -transfer preempts would be legal I feel that those are very reasonable and acceptable for most system designers as well as "traditional" players. EDIT: I just realized that openings which says something about shortness in given suit wouldn't be legal in most cases; maybe a) should be rewritten as : "any opening which promises continuous length in given suit";

Very crude simulation effort: W: our hand S: 15-17hcp, exactly 6♠, no 5card suit on the side N: 7-11hcp, exactly 2♠ Winning lead at imps (for 504 hands): ♠ - 44 low ♥ - 121 2♦ - 94 8♣ - 113 Of course it's crude and not really saying much but as it agrees with my intuition I am pretty sure about ♥ being correct lead at both imps and mp's.

sorry , wrong post, please delete

I remember a hand where Helgemo has bid 2♠ with : AQTxxxx xx Qx xx It went: 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♠ I was surprised at the time but now it seems good/standard to me. With OP hand 3♠ wouldn't be an option for me. 100% 2♠.

Your methods in this hand were: dbl = majors 1NT = minors rest natural; 1NT was natural, 18-21hcp with spade stopper.

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa9832hjdj74caqj3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pass - 1♣ - 1♠ - Pass Pass - 1NT - ???? 1♣ = 16+ World class opponents and world class partner, your bid ?

By saying his partner was clearly out of his mind I meant his pass over double, not his comment about the double. I am not convinced double is clearcut either, especially against good opponents.

I like chiming in with 1♠ on such garbage hands with long suit but vulnerable it's too much even for me. You need a partner who understands this style though to do that.

Yeah I like them too. I guess if you play wide range openings (11-22) they can be used for some other strong hands ? (6-4 ?, 5-4 with OM ?). I play they always anyway at 2level. At 3level I guess they are not that good in anything but precision.